Study Site Boo-boos.

[M56]

On what is otherwise a nice little study site for learners, I find this:

NB! English is the only European language which doesn't have a future tense. It uses another verb ('shall') to indicate the future.

------

What motivates that kind of restrictive, and for some users of AmEng impossible, statement? If anyone visits the above site and spots similar "error", could you please post them here? I want to inform the site's creators about such things.

Thanks

Here's the site: http://www.buzzin.net/english/verbs.htm

[RonBee]

I think that claim is based the lack of change in the verb itself indicating a future tense.

[Tdol]

Here's the site: http://www.buzzin.net/english/verbs.htm

[M56]

I think that claim is based the lack of change in the verb itself indicating a future tense.

Yes, I agree, but a bit of an oversight to miss out all the expressions we can use to talk about the futute.

[M56]

Here's the site: http://www.buzzin.net/english/verbs.htm

Oops! Thanks.

[Tdol]

And to plump for 'shall', which is rarely used outside questions in BrE.

[M56]

I know.

[Tdol]

Mind you, they are thinking in British terms, not international- for the British educational system, poor things.

[M56]

Mind you, they are thinking in British terms, not international- for the British educational system, poor things.

Yes, they are.

BTW, did you know that the FE Dept. in Britain is now using the term "minor sentence all it's English key stage advisory docs? That really upset a certain M*Y.

[Tdol]

I can't get worked up about terminology. I wish they would settle on standard terms simply for the benefit of learners. The FE might use that, but the grammar check in Word uses Sentence Fragment. Some say progressive, others continuous, a few durative. The profusion of terms doesn't help learners greatly. I have no objections to 'minor sentence' at all, and can't see that much difference between it and 'sentence fragment' in all honesty.